Wakilii

Olanya and Another v Ladur and Another (Miscellaneous Application 134 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHC 1201 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to adduce additional evidence in pending appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court decision in land trespass suit
Decision
Application to adduce additional evidence dismissed with costs to respondents

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

An appellate court may admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances. Where a party deliberately conceals evidence within their knowledge during trial and later seeks to introduce it on appeal, and where that evidence introduces a new cause of action not before the trial court, the conditions for admitting fresh evidence are not satisfied. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application to adduce additional evidence dismissed with costs to respondents

Facts

The respondents sued the applicants in the Chief Magistrate's Court for trespass on unregistered customary land, claiming the land had been gifted to their ancestor Andrea Mwodo. During the pendency of the suit, the applicants applied for and obtained a freehold certificate of title over the suit land on 21 November 2021. The trial magistrate delivered judgment on 24 March 2023, declaring the respondents the lawful owners and awarding damages and an eviction order. The applicants appealed and then filed this application seeking to adduce the certificate of title as additional evidence, claiming it was not presented by their counsel at trial and that the trial court lost jurisdiction once the title was issued. The respondents opposed, contending the applicants deliberately concealed the title registration process and that the certificate introduces a new cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be allowed to adduce additional evidence (a certificate of title) in a pending appeal.
  2. Whether the certificate of title obtained during the pendency of the suit affects the jurisdiction of the trial court or the validity of its judgment.
  3. Whether the conditions for admission of fresh evidence on appeal are satisfied.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appellate Procedure — Additional Evidence on Appeal — Conditions for Admission
Under section 80(1)(d) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 43 rule 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, an appellate court may admit additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances: the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence at trial; it must be relevant and credible; it must be capable of probably influencing the result; and the application must be brought without undue delay.
Civil Procedure — Appellate Procedure — Additional Evidence — Deliberate Concealment by Party
Where a party was aware of the existence of evidence during trial and deliberately chose not to plead it or disclose it to the court, that party cannot subsequently apply to adduce it as fresh evidence on appeal. The obligation rests on parties to adduce all material evidence at trial, and failure to do so does not justify a second hearing.
Evidence — Fresh Evidence on Appeal — Evidence Introducing New Cause of Action
Where the proposed additional evidence introduces a completely different cause of action that was not before the trial court, it cannot be admitted on appeal as it does not go to the issues that were determined by the trial court and cannot influence the determination of the grounds of appeal.
Land & Property — Registered Land versus Customary Land — Effect of Title Registration on Pending Suit
The issuance of a certificate of title over customary land during the pendency of a trespass suit concerning that unregistered customary land does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction or invalidate its judgment. The certificate of title introduces a separate cause of action that can only be the subject of a different suit.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Karmali Tarmohamed and Another v I.H. Lakhani and Co [1958] EA 567
  • Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
  • Michael Mabikke v Law Development Centre (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2015)
  • Nanyonjo Aisha v Kato Edward Ssalongo (HCMA No. 542 of 2022)
  • Aluma Michael Bayo and Others v Said Nasur Okuti (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0012 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Olanya and Another v Ladur and Another (Miscellaneous Application 134 of 2024) [2024] UGHC 1201 (20 February 2024)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.